9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of section 458A of the Companies Act, which was inserted by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960, the period of limitation for filing any suit or application gets extended, and if so, whether a claim which was barred on the date, the application for winding up was filed, stands revived on account of an order of the Court in the winding up proceedings. In the impugned judgment, the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court has recorded its conclusion that the provisions contained in section 458A of the Companies Act does not confer a fresh cause of action and, therefore, if the time for the claim is already barred under the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, then the appointment of official liquida- tor on an application being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeding by or against the company as well as any claim made by or against the company. Section 458A merely excludes the time in computing the period of limitation for any claim. The aforesaid section is extracted herein-below in extenso for better appreciation of point in issue : "458A. Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application in the name and on behalf of a company which is being wound up by the Court, the period from the date of commencement of the winding up of the company to the date on which the winding up order is made (both inclusive) and a period of one year immediately following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court answered the same in the affirmative. That is not the dispute in the case in hand inasmuch as there is no dispute about the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to an application filed for enforcement under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act. So far as the Judgment of Kerala High Court is concerned, in the case of K.P. Ulahannam (supra), the question for consideration was whether the time prescribed under section 458A of the Companies Act would be excluded for computing the period of limitation for a claim petition being filed under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act read with Article 137 of the Limitation Act. In the aforesaid case, the Full Bench of Kerala High Court came to hold that the starting point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quidator can make an application under section 446(2) and such an application will attract the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. It was further held that reading section 458A of the Companies Act and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, together such an application by the official liquidator should be filed within a period of four years from the date of the winding up order. To the same effect is the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Maruti Ltd. v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [1989] 66 Comp. Cas. 309 . On a plain reading of the provisions contained in section 458A of the Companies Act, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid provisions merely exclude the period, during which a company was being wound up by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
